February 16, 1914

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA CONVENTION.

Hon. J. D. HAZEN moved for leave to lay on the table of the House a copy of the convention concluded in London on January 20 last by the International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea. He said:
In view of the world-wide importance attaching to this convention, it may not be inappropriate that I should, in submitting it to the consideration of hon. gentlemen of this House, make a few observations in relation to the calling of the International Conference, and to the conclusions that have been arrived at. I desire, therefore, with the permission of the House, to summarize as briefly as possible some of the leading features of the convention, and, in so doing, to direct attention to the fact that for a number of years past there has been manifested from time to time a disposition to make the regulations for the safety of

life at sea international and of a higher standard.
Before the calling together of this conference, substantial progress had been made along these lines by several of the principal maritime powers. It was not, however, until the terrible disaster of the Titanic, in April, 1912, that there was a general awakening of the nations to the necessity, in the interests of humanity, of examining with the greatest thoroughness the possibility of strengthening existing measures for the safety of life at sea.
It will be within the recollection of this House that immediately following the loss of the Titanic, inquiries into the cause of the disaster were . undertaken by the authorities of the United States and of Great Britain. The conduct of this investigation was entrusted by Great Britain to Lord Mersey, and so comprehensive was the inquiry and so complete was his report that it arrested the attention of the whole civilized world, and made it abundantly clear that the day had arrived for stocktaking on the part of the nations. The British Government, profoundly impressed by the report of Lord Mersey, hastened to take action, and accordingly issued invitations to the principal foreign maritime nations to come together for the purpose of devising, if possible, means for the greater safety, not only of those who travel by sea, but also of those whose calling is of the sea. The Imperial Government extended invitations to Canada, Australia and New Zealand to attend this conference. The following extract from the invitation will help hon. gentlemen better to understand the objects sought to be attained:
It would be the object ot me conference to endeavour to bring about agreement among the participating states with reference to the conditions necessary for safety to be laid down in the case of passenger steamships, and with reference to other measures in the interests of the safety of maritime passenger traffic. In the event of such agreement being arrived at and embodied in a convention, each signatory state would be responsible for giving legislative and administrative effect to the provisions of that convention and issuing the necessary certificates to its national ships which comply with those provisions. The conference would further deal with the conditions under which certificates so issued should be accepted as valid by the other signatory states.
The invitation of Great Britain immediately received the consideration of the Government, and, having regard to the great importance of the question, to the widespread interest in it and to my desire to help to the greatest possible extent, I
fMr. Hazen.]
recommended its acceptance to my colleagues. This recommendation met the cordial approval of the Government and the necessary steps were taken to have Canada represented at the conference, which met in London on November 12, last.
The conference was attended by plenipotentiaries representing the British Empire, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, France, the United States1, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Bussia and Japan. Having regard to the circumstances that led up to the calling of the conference, it will, I am sure, surprise no one that Lord Mersey, the principal British delegate, should have been unanimously chosen as its chairman.
The first work to engage the attention of the conference was the consideration of a suggestion by the British Government to classify the different subjects that were to be dealt with, as follows:
Life Saving Appliances; Safety of Construction; Safety of Navigation; Wireless Telegraphy; International Certificates.
The suggestion was acted upon, and and committees were appointed to consider and report upon the respective subjects. Every state participating in the work of the conference was represented on each of these committees. After their work was finished, Lord Mersey, speaking of these committees, said:
They were composed of men of great knowledge and experience in regard to matters with which they were to deal, and I venture to think that it would have been impossible to have found anywhere men better fitted for the tasks they undertook.
It may be interesting to recall here the names of the gentlemen who served as chairmen of these committees. They were:
Life Saving Appliances: Sir John Biles, Professor of Naval Architecture, Glasgow University.
Safety of Construction: Admiral Washington L. Capps, Chief Naval Constuctor for the United States.
Safety of Navigation: Sir Norman Hill,
President of the Marine Advisory Board.
Wireless Telegraphy: Mr. E. G. Moggridge, Assistant Secretary, Marine Department, Board of Trade,
International Certificates: His Excellency, Dr. Van Kerner of the German Foreign Office at Berlin.
The manner in which these gentlemen have done their work, is aptly expressed by Lord Mersey, who said: ' The admirable
work they have severally done is the best proof of their ability.'﻿FEBRUARY 16, 1914
It will probably be considered by many that the most important article of the Convention is the one laying down the principle that there must be accommodation in life boats or their equivalents for all persons on board of any steamship. For the carrying into effect of this principle^ the convention lays down detailed regulations regarding the construction of the different types of boats, their equipment, stowage, strength of davits, number and construction of life buoys and life jackets. It is further provided that as large a number as possible of the boats and rafts may be launched on either side of the ship, so that as few as possible need be launched on the weather side. It is further provided that there must be a minimum number of members of the crew competent to handle the boats. Men will not be considered competent for this purpose who do not hold a certificate of competency issued under the authority of the government of some one of the signatory states. There is, in addition, a provision to the effect that all ships to which the convention applies, must be efficiently and sufficiently manned from the point of view of safety of life at sea.
The carriage of dangerous goods is forbidden, and the signatory states will from time to time issue official warnings as to what goods are dangerous, either singly or in combination, and will prescribe regulations in that connection. The convention in this respect is but approving internationally the policy already adopted and carried out by my department.
The House will remember that quite recently there have occurred several disasters at sea resulting from fire. This question received the most careful consideration, and the convention provides for an organized system of patrol for detecting fires, and regulations are provided requiring adequate means for rapidly extinguishing fire and the organization of the crew for emergencies and for boat and fire drill. It also provided that all ships shall have an adequate system of lighting, to enable passenger? in an emergency readily to find their way to the exits from the interior of the ship In new ships there must be an independent source of lighting fitted in as high a position as practicable, so that in the event of disaster to the main machinery of the ship by flooding, fire or otherwise, passengers and crew may not find themselves exposed to the additional danger that darkness precipitates.
I think it will be admitted by most of those who have had experience in rough weather at sea that escape under such
conditions, from a ship overtaken by disaster, with the aid of the very best lifesaving appliances that human ingenuity can devise, is both difficult and dangerous. The recent case of the Voltarno goes far to support this view, for it will be remembered that tlie great loss of life on that occasion occurred among those who managed to escape into the boats while those who did not venture into the boats but preferred to take chances on the ship were eventually saved. I refer to this in order to emphasize the view that in my judgment, a great, if not the greater factor in the safety of life at sea must 'be found in the construction of the ship. And I have no monopoly of this view, for I find that it is shared very largely by those who have given serious thought to the question and are best qualified to judge. The provisions of the convention respecting the construction of ships in the future are therefore of the utmost interest and importance. These provisions are necessarily technical and complicated and I abstain from any attempt to explain them. They are fully set out in the convention and I doubt not that the judgment of time will be that more than anything else they have contributed to the safety of life at sea. These provisions are to apply to all vessels, the keels of which shall be laid after the date prescribed by the convention. The subdivision of a ship into an adequate number of main water-tight compartments to enable her to remain afloat in the event of damage destroying the integrity of one or more of these compartments is the main purpose of that part of the convention dealing with construction and in this connection I regard it a matter for congratulation that Canadian interests have already taken a forward step in this direction and have to some considerable extent anticipated the findings of the conference. I have reference to the two new Empresses recently placed on the Pacific ocean between British Columbia and the Orient, by the Canadian Pacific railway; to two new steamships about ready for launching for the same company to be placed on the route between Vancouver and Seattle and to the new Alsatian, of the Allan line, whose maiden voyage was made from Liverpool to Halifax only a few days ago. All of these ships are, I am advised, in the matter of construction and water-tight compartments, superior to anything that [DOT]has yet been accomplished in any country.
Before passing from this phase of the-convention, I think it well to direct the:

attention of the House to the observations of Admiral Capps on the work of the committee on construction, of which he was chairman. He said:
It is important to point out that even after the most careful attention to all practicable details of design which increase the safety of a vessel at sea, there still remains the possibility of a serious and even totally destructive accident. Therefore it is imperative that those charged with the management of vessels should never relax their vigilance on the supposition that any vessel is unsinkable. On the contrary", they should strive to add to the safety provided by the vessel Itself, that very great Increase in safety which results from prudent and skilful management and navigation.
I commend these words of Admiral Capps to the earnest consideration of all those in this country who have to do with the management ,and navigation of ships.
. I now come to another very important feature of the convention-that relating to safety of navigation. It will be unnecessary to recall that the Titanic disaster was caused by collision with what must have been an enormous quantity of ice floating southward crossing the track usually followed by all steamships engaged in the North Atlantic trade. It is equally unnecessary that I should call attention to the extreme importance, from the point of view of safety, as well as from other considerations, of keeping trans-Atlantic, steamships advised of the position from day to day of this floating ice. It will be observed that the convention makes provision for the supplying of information to all interested parties as to the location, extent and movement of ice along the North Atlantic steamship routes. The importance of this provision of the convention will be readily appreciated.
It is well known, however, that floating ice does not constitute the only menace to navigation in the North Atlantic. The floating derelict is one of the mariners greatest dreads and there is a general view held that many, if not all, of the disasters of which no information has ever become available have been caused by collision with floating derelicts. The convention provides for a patrol of the North and West Atlantic ocean to locate and destroy all floating derelicts, and there can be no doubt, but that this provision will command universal approval.
The question of ice observation has come to be regarded by many of the nations, more especially by Great Britain, as an important one. Here is a matter upon which Canada has just claims for congratulation. We may properly claim to be the
pioneer in the work of ice observation. The members of this House will, I am sure, be familiar with the results achieved by Professor Barnes of McGill University with the assistance of my department in recent years. These results, embodied in the comprehensive reports by Professor Barnes submitted to this House by my department in recent years, have awakened in other nations a growing interest in this subject to such an extent that the convention provides for an International service to continue the work of ice observation.
Towards the maintenance of these three services of ice patrol, ice observation and destruction of derelicts, 13 of the Signatory States have agreed to contribute as follows:
Per cent.
Austria-Hungary 2
Belgium 4
Canada 2
Denmark 2
France 15
Germany 15
Great Britain * 30
Italy 4
Netherlands 4
Norway 3
Bussia 2
Sweden 2
United States of America * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] 15
The estimated cost of these services, which will require the exclusive time of two properly built and equipped ships, will be between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand dollars a year, and, bearing in mind the interest that Canada has in the greater safety of the North Atlantic routes, I venture to hope that the amount that we are called upon to contribute for maintenance will not be considered unreasonable and will be cheerfully approved.
I desire to refer to the fact that the convention does not come into effect until July 1, 1915, and that in the intervening period two ice seasons are to be provided for. I have regarded it as of the utmost importance that, pending the coming into effect of the convention, effective provision should be made for ice patrol and for derelict destruction and on my recommendation the British Government has been advised that Canada would be prepared forthwith to contribute its share for the maintenance of the service. The British Government is at present negotiating with the other interested nations with a view to secure their assent to start these services this season, rather than wait until the coming into effect of the convention. Whilst 1
am not prepared to make a definite statement, I am not without hope that an announcement will be made at an early date to the effect that the service will be established at once.
Of scarcely less importance is that portion of the convention that deals with the question of wireless telegraphy. Here again, it was found that Canada occupies a foremost position among the nations and it will be noted with pleasure, I am sure, that the terms of the convention follow, in the main, the principles laid down in the Act passed by this Parliament two sessions ago. The principal provision is that all ships of the contracting states when engaged upon international voyages, and having on board fifty persons or more must be equipped with wireless telegraphy apparatus. The provisions of the Radio-telegraphic Convention of 1912 respecting classification of ships that require to be equipped with wireless apparatus are adopted in the present convention. Generally speaking, this classification places the fast passenger steamships in the first category. Other steamships intended to carry twenty-five passengers or more, are placed in the second category, and all other vessels required to be equipped in a third category. The convention provides for continuous watches on all vessels as soon as the Government of the state to which the vessel belongs is satisfied that such watch will be useful for the purpose of saving life at sea. After the period provided for in the convention, the following vessels will be required to keep a continuous watch:
1. Vessels of more than 13 knots carrying 200 or more passengers and which make voyages of more than 500 miles between two consecutive ports;
2. Vessels in the second category during the time they are more than 500 miles from land;
3. Other vessels that are required to be fitted with wireless apparatus which are engaged in the transatlantic trade or whose voyages take them more than 1,000 miles from land.
It is provided that the wireless installation must have a range of at least 100 miles. An emergency apparatus, placed in a position of the greatest safety possible, must also be provided unless the main installation is placed in the highest part of the ship. Another important feature of the convention lays down that the master of any ship in distress shall have the right to call to his assistance from amongst the vessels which have answered his appeal for help, the vessel which he thinks can best render assistance.
The question of the mutual recognition of certificates of inspection is one that has for long engaged the attention of some of the nations. Several of them have been able to conclude arrangements whereby the certificate issued by one, would be recognized as valid by the other. In the past, it frequently happened that the ships of one nation were subjected to harrassing delays in the ports of another state, in order to have an inspection made by the latter. These delays, etc., in addition to being harrassing and vexatious, at times resulted in loss of time and consequently additional expense to shipping, without corresponding advantages. It is satisfactory to note that the convention provides a standard of inspection by which, when adhered to by the ships of any of the contracting states, the certificate to that effect shall be accepted by all the other states as of equal value to their own.
Except where otherwise provided by the convention, the merchant ships of each of the states of the high contracting parties which are mechanically propelled, which carry more than twelve passengers and which proceed from a port of one of the said states to a port situated outside that state, or inversely, are subject to the rules laid down in the present convention. Ports situated in the colonies, possessions or protectorates of the high contracting parties are considered to be ports outside the states of the high contracting parties.
Persons who are on board by reason of force majeure or in consequence of the obligation laid upon the master to carry shipwrecked or other persons, are not deemed to be passengers.
In addition to those ships to which the convention immediately applies, there are in each of the countries affected a large number of ships engaged in the coasting and inland trade, and while the convention proper does not apply to them, there need be no doubt but that the provisions laid down by the conference will guide each nation in dealing with those of its ships not subject to the convention.
The convention proper consists of seventy-four articles, to which there are appended regulations to the number of fifty-one. The summary I have endeavoured to place before the House is necessarily inadequate, but I have deemed it advisable to call attention to its more important and outstanding aspects.
I am afraid it is too much to hope that the work of the conference, as embodied in the terms of the convention, will meet the approval of all. There may be disappointments and criticisms. Some may say that the convention does not go far enough, and others that it goes too far. It is not always easy or even possible to attain results that will command the un-

qualified approval of all. Those who have been in close touch with matters of this kind will readily appreciate that international agreements respecting merchant shipping are beset with difficulties. It was only by the earnest desire of the representatives of all the nations, to place the safety of life at sea on the highest possible plane, that all these difficulties were overcome and unanimous conclusions arrived at. I venture to think that no previous international conference has more widely attracted the attention of the nations. It is well known that Their Majesties, the King and Queen, have taken a personal interest in the work of the conference, and their loyal subjects throughout the empire owe them dutiful thanks. It is also well known that His Majesty the German Emperor and the President of the United States took a keen personal interest in the outcome, and all who are interested in the safety of life at sea will be grateful to them for it.
The London Times, referring to the conference after the convention was concluded, said:
Its members are to be congratulated alike upon the spirit that has animated them, and upon the effective skill and good sense with which their efforts have been directed to a fruitful end. The nations have never before brought into the common stock, their accumulated knowledge and experience with a view to establishing general standards of safety and enforcing them by international co-operation. The deliberations of the delegates have produced, not a mere report embodying pious opinions and recommendations, but a complete and definite convention applying to ocean-going passenger ships, which it is proposed that the maritime nations of the world shall adopt and enforce as it stands. When this has been done, as there is every hope it will be, a great step will have been taken towards reducing the risks of ocean travel to a minimum.
The Chronicle of the same date observed:
The success of the International Conference on Saving Life at Sea marks quite an epoch, not only for merchant shipping but for internationalism. Its report, signed yesterday by the plenipotentiaries of twelve sovereign states and three British dominions (which were separately represented) brings, practically, the nations of the world up to a common level in regard to life-saving. The list of signatories does not include one or two powers (we notice Russia and Japan) whose flag flies on ocean-going steamers; but it represents nevertheless so immense a proportion of the world's mercantile marine that we do not believe that they will find it pay to make their ships invidious exceptions. Universality of this kind is too often secured by acquiescence in low standards; the triumph of the conference is that its standard is really a valuable one, and constitutes a conspicuous improvement.
I submit this convention to the House in the full hope and confidence that in the years to come it will go far to prevent a repetition of the sad and all too numerous calamities that we have known in recent years, and in submitting it, Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot do better than to adopt the language of Lord Mersey, who, in proposing its adoption by the conference, said:
Our work will no doubt be criticised. So far as the criticism originates with interested parties, we can afford to ignore it; and so far as it originates with disinterested parties, our answer must be that we have done our best, that we have done it with anxious care, and as we believe, in the true interests of those who travel by sea. You have been engaged in perfecting a great "work which, I am firmly convinced, will be of lasting benefit to mankind. Much more than this, however, you have perhaps unconsciously, but nevertheless most surely, by the spirit of courtesy and conciliation which has been displayed throughout your deliberations, contributed greatly to the increase of mutual respect and confidence among the nations and thereby to the peace and happiness of the world at large.
I might add that Canada was represented at the conference by the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, assisted by the advice of two technical officers of the department, Mr. Duguid and Mr. McDonnell. It was agreed that this convention should be submitted, on the 16th day of February, to the Parliaments and Legislatures of the different states and nations who were parties to the convention, and it is for that reason I now have the pleasure of laying the convention on the table of the House.

LIB

Wilfrid Laurier
(Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

The conference which sat in London last summer certainly attracted the attention of the world, and I believe the encomiums which have been passed upon its work by my hon. friend are well deserved. The regulations, so far as one could follow them in the synopsis given to the House by my hon. friend, seem to be very well considered and, whether they are adopted or not, one thing is certain: it will work for the solidarity of the nations who are parties to the convention. I would like, however, to have more information than my hon. friend has given us; or, if he has given it,

I have failed to observe it.

I would like to know whether the regulations have been adopted by the twelve nations there represented as a binding treaty or whether they are simply regulations submitted to the nations for voluntary observance. If it is the intention that these rules are not to be made bind-

ing in the form of a treaty is it to be assumed that they should be enforced, as far as they can be enforced, by legislation? 1 observe that my hon. friend stated that in one respect he has taken action, and a very proper action, for controlling the North Atlantic ocean with a view to guarding navigation against derelicts and other difficulties. So far so good; this requires no legislation at all, but an appropriation which, I am sure, Parliament will be ready and anxious to vote. But I would like to know in what form the matter now stands. Are these simply regulations laid down for the voluntary observance of the different nations, or is it intended that they shall be made binding upon all by law?

John Douglas Hazen
(Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Conservative (1867-1942)

that the regulations shall be binding on the different nations and countries which are parties to the convention. As to whether any legislative action on the part of this House is necessary, that matter is being considered now between my department and the Department of Justice and I hope to be able to give my right hon. friend a positive answer to-morrow or next day.

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr. M. J. DEMERS moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, to amend the Railway Act. He said:
Mr. Speaker, the object of the Bill I am submitting to the consideration of the House is to further extend the provision of a Bill introduced by me last week, in connection with section 298 of the Railway Act. This Bill, moreover, embodies some special provisions in respect to the prescription of actions arising out of the application of section 298; and lastly, it provides for cases where insurance has been secured on property destroyed by fire through sparks emitted from the smoke-stacks of railway locomotives.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

TRUST COMPANIES.

Hon. G. H. PERLEY (for Hon. W. T. White) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies. He
said:
The intention of this Bill is to do for trust companies what has already been done by legislation for banks and insurance companies. Some trust companies have been incorporated by letters patent,
but of late years they have nearly all come to Parliament for a special Act and they have asked for different powers. The question has been discussed in each case before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the consequence is that no two of these acts of incorporation are exactly alike. The object is to secure uniformity in all trust company legislation in order that when they come to the Parliament of Canada for incorporation, they may be incorporated under a short model Bill which will give them all the powers which are intended to be granted under this Act. The Bill follows very much the model Bill which has been in use by the Banking and Commerce Committee during the last year or two. The Bill will be thoroughly explained by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance himself on the second reading. There are provisions for a compulsory audit of trust companies and also for complete returns to be made each year to the Minister of Finance. .
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon. J. D. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71, to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting Fisheries and Fishing. He said:
The Bill which I have just introduced, does not contain any very
important or drastic changes in the fisheries laws as they exist at the present time. The Fisheries Act has been amended from time to time, and as under section 54 thereof, the Governor General has the power to make regulations which may extend, vary or alter the provisions of the Act in certain respects, many of its provisions are now not effective. The Act is, therefore, in its present form, not very intelligible, and urgently needs consolidation. It has never been revised since it was first enacted in 1867, and several of its clauses, in the light of experience gained, should be somewhat changed.
The Act is considerably shortened by the leaving out of the sections which provided close times for fish, and meshes of nets to be used, all of which have ceased long ago to be law, as they have been superseded by regulations by Order in Council. The following are the only amendments of importance. In section 2 of the Bill, the only change is that the word ' fishery ' is defined. It was not defined in the old law and experience has shown this to be necessary.

Subsection 3 of section 5 is new. It gives the minister the authority to appoint, without going to Council, fishery guardians, from time to time as their services are needed. Such has been, done for many years past, though under the Act it has not been legal. As a matter of fact, for some years, these guardians have been appointed in a way that is not in accordance with the law. Last year, on that fact being called to my attention, an Order in Council was procured, appointing all the fishery guardians which number over seven hundred.
The next change is section 26 of the Bill, which provides that the manager oi proprietor of a lobster cannery shall, on demand, produce his license ' to any person designated by the minister,' as well as to a fishery officer. There are times when officials of the department go down to visit these canneries, and as they are not technically constituted fishery officers they have no right to demand of the manager or proprietor of the lobster cannery the production of his license. This is to cover instances where officers are sent out from headquarters.
Section 29 is probably the most important amendment. It replaces section 44 of the existing Act, which deals with the possession of fish. As the law now stands, before the department can secure a conviction, it is necessary for it to establish as a preliminary fact, that the fish were caught at a time, or in a manner, prohibited by law, thus rendering it necessary for the department to adduce the evidence of some person who has actually seen the fish being caught illegally, before the person possessing the fish can be called upon to show lawful excuse for their possession. If during the close season for lobsters a fisherman comes ashore with a boatload of lobsters, unless we can produce the evidence of some one who saw him illegally taking the lobsters, we cannot proceed against him.
The new -section makes possession during the close season in itself an offence, unless the possessor can show lawful excuse for having such fish in his possession during the close season. This is a condition of different game laws, and it is absolutely necessary to enable us to control difficulties, etc., arising, particularly in the lobster fishery.
In section 31, the only important change is that provision is made for making a canal around a dam through which fish may pass, in place of building a fishway through the dam. The former course is
frequently found the best, depending on local conditions.
Subsection 6 of section 31 is amended by giving the minister power to remove old dams or obstructions to the ascent of fish without being liable to trespass. It sometimes happens that a dam is deserted, but is not opened, and it is difficult to find the possessor, as he may not want to go to any expense in connection with it, or he may be out of the country, but if we remove the dam under the Act as it at present stands, we would be liable for damages.
Section 35 enables the minister to grant authority for the erection of barriers not only for the retaining of fish for fish breeding purposes, but for commercial purposes. There are a number of carp ponds in Ontario now. The carp are held by grating, and are fed corn, etc., but under the Act it is illegal, though it is a most desirable practice.
Section 37 is the same as subsection 7 of section 47 of the existing Act, except that it leaves out the words * other than salmon.' Under the present clause it is illegal to catch -salmon by means of pound-nets or trap-nets, though the nets used all around New Brunswick have for'years been really pounds.
Section 45 is the same as section 54 of the present Act, with the exception that clause (g) is added, which enables the Governor in Council to make regulations prohibiting the sale or export of fish. We have such regulations now in Ontario and British Columbia, but they are really ultra vires.
Section 47 is amended by authorizing a fishery officer or justice of the peace to break open and search any house, etc., in which he has good reason to believe there is illegal fish. At present it is necessary for the officer to go and procure a warrant. While he would be doing so, all traces of illegality would be removed. Indeed, the officers have on different occasions broken into sheds, etc., acting on the assumption that they had the authority to do so.
Section 48 is new. Officers sometimes find masked men and others fishing or preparing to fish. The identity of these men being unknown, they have at present no authority to arrest them. Hence they escape.
Section 50 is new. It is necessary by the fact that fishery officers are sometimes interfered with in the discharge of their duties, and no remedy is provided under the existing Act.
Section 88 is amended toy providing that
a conviction shall not be quashed by certiorari. It frequently happens that on account of want of legal knowledge errors are made in convictions which would enable them to be set aside by certiorari.
Section 91 is amended by making it lawful for any person who thinks himself aggrieved by a conviction or order or dismissal, either the prosecutor or complainant, as well as the defendant, to appeal under the provision of part 15 of the Criminal Code. Under the present section the only appeal is to the minister.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

CON

Robert Laird Borden
(Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)